Why is diplomatic immunity even a thing? Why was this particular job decided to be above the law?
In: 9529
For international relationships to work, the countries need to be able to give a lot of latitude to make binding agreements to their diplomats. As countries typically have a very large amount of latitude for defining and prosecuting crimes for anybody in their territory, its very easy to see how that can lead to a diplomat agreeing to some deal then claiming they only agreed because they were threatened with prosecution. Such claims would make diplomatic agreements much harder to come by.
Basically, diplomatic immunity exists so that a country can send a diplomat over and that diplomat knows they will be able to negotiate freely without facing any persecution in the host country, even if said host country does not like the terms offered, and even if the two countries are actively hostile. The later is vital for allowing peace to be negotiated during a war: who would willingly walk into the enemy’s custody without some guarantee they can return?
That said, diplomatic immunity has both degrees and is not absolute. Any conditions and limitations will be agreed upon prior to the diplomat being accepted into the host country. If such terms cannot be agreed upon, the diplomat will be required to return to their home country, which will need to send a different diplomat to repeat the process.
Not all diplomats get the same degree of protection: a top level diplomat working with the host’s department of state might have full immunity, while a lower level diplomat working with private citizens at consulates may be granted only minimal immunity. Its not uncommon for diplomats to be able to be fined, but not jailed, for example. Often, for higher level diplomats, the immunity will be extended to their family and staff. Lower level diplomats will have less such expansion. This expansion is for the same reason: a diplomat is likely to negotiate differently if their family is threatened.
In terms of absoluteness, while the host country cannot revoke the credentials other than expelling the diplomat, the home country can fully revoke the immunity. This means, a diplomat can be charged with a crime, if the home country can be convinced they committed it. For many crimes, this process is not worth the time and energy of either country, but for serious crimes, the host country may pursue the process.
Some diplomats will also only have immunity for specific types of actions, typically actions directly related to their job. A consulate worker may have immunity should they harbor a wanted criminal that requested asylum, but not against a theft charge.
Latest Answers